Public deserves to see art, form opinions
« . i___r\f rJiinoc or.
Abortion
Services with
real sensitivity...
you really
helped me\”
l_
■Free Pregnancy Testing
■Professional Counseling & Referrals
■Abortions IVoccdures to 20 weeks
■Speakers' Bureau
■Routine Gyn Care
■Visa, MasterCard and Some
Insurance Plans Accepted
■Ancthesia Available
■Certified Surgeon
C WOMEN’S
MEDICAL
CENTER OF
NEBRASKA
4930 “L" Street
Omaha. NE68117
(402) 734-7500
(800)228-5342
foil free outside NE
By Bryan Peterson
Staff Reporter
Last week I witnessed a remark
able performance by the dance
company Momix. The perform
ance was amazing and I did not
think until afterward about the
significance of what I had seen.
In several of the pieces, the
female performers were partially
nude. The dance pieces were artis
tic and erotic but not flagrantly
sexual.
Here was an internationally
renowned dance troupe giving five
performances involving partial
nudity in Lincoln, Neb. And with
funds from the National Endow
ment for the Arts, the Nebraska Arts
Council and the University of Ne
braska-Lincoln.
There are many who would
condemn state funding of poten
tially objectionable works. I know
very little of the artistic and aes
thetic components of dance and
am not one to judge the artistic
merit of nudity, but many ques
tions come to mind.
Did the nudity add particular
feeling or content to the piece?
Could the same effects have been
achieved without it? How would
complete nudity have affected the
performance?
These questions arise not be
cause of the nudity itself but be
cause of its acceptability in this
context. Some would be offended
by the performance, but the at
tending audience showed over
whelming approval.
Why does the state support
some performances which might
be considered objectionable yet
neglect others? The ability to en
dow or provide funds for the arts is
a powerful one. Exercise of this
power is vital to the survival of the
arts but carries with it tremendous
weight in shaping the thoughts
and morals of tne audience.
Certain potentially objection
able performances gain credibility
and acceptance through recogni
tion of their artistic worth, and
these performances are more likely
to receive funding.
But recognition of artistic worth
is a fragile, fleeting condition.
Public favor is granted quickly and
sometimes more quickly with
drawn, and standards of artistic
value, even among the art commu
nity, always are changing.
Think of all the artists who have
died in poverty whose works now
sell for fortunes. O consider the
number of composers who are
lauded today but who were ne
glected in their own eras.
This underscores the impor
tance of funding for the arts. With
out external support, there is great
risk of allowing classics to go
unnoticed, whether in the fields of
art, dance, music, drama or else
where.
Yet a work of art need not be a
classic to be valuable. Support or
neglect of any work may be of
greater consequence than we
know.
Art can be a powerful force in
stimulating thoughts and feelings
among both artists and audiences.
The arts have inherent aesthetic
qualities, hut other qualities can be
of even more value to society.
Some performances or pieces
express sentiments which are
clearly objectionable or even
threatening to the public. I hese
are the most likely to generate
controversy and are in some ways
the most important to our society.
The government needs to allow
the expression of controversial or
threatening ideas. Free and unre
stricted expression of opinions is
the foundation of a free society.
When artists use their works to
express opinions or feelings, these
need to be accessible to the public.
Yet this does not place an obli
gation upon the state to encourage
or subsidize such works, only to
tolerate them. Recently the limits of
government tolerance have been
tested in several instances such as
Scott Tyler’s display at the School
of the Art Institute of Chicago.
In Tyler’s exhibit, an American
flag was placed on the floor to
make people ‘“confront their feel
ings’ about patriotism,” according
to the Des Moines Register (Aug.
13). Viewers also were asked to
step on the flag as they wrote
opinions in a book.
Last year, the school also met
controversy over the display of a
picture of the late Mayor Harold
Washington in lingerie (ibid).
Congressional storms have
brewed over the use of federal
funds in the display of “ho
moerotic” photography by Robert
Mapplethorpe and the infamous
“Piss Christ” of Andres Serrano, a
photo of a plastic crucifix im
mersed in a jar of the artist’s urine.
Whether or not it is a valid dis
tinction, the controversy stems
from efforts to separate the content
of the works from their artistic
value.
I will not comment upon the
artistic value of these works, hav
ing never seen them and lacking
sufficient knowledge of things
aesthetic. Nor is my opinion of the
content of these works relevant.
The issue is the standard which
condemns these works based on
their content rather than their artis
tic value.
Whatever the artist creates is
“art,” but it is the public who cre
ates judgements on the value of the
art.
Works widely judged to have no
artistic value likely will go unno
ticed and are perhaps not deserv
ing of public funds.
There is a notion that die artist
must struggle, must meet and over
come resistance before gaining
acceptance. Overcoming obstacles
challenges and stimulates them in
the pursuit of excellence.
Herein lies the importance ot
criticism and the value of struggle.
Sadly, too often the success of
artists is determined by factors
other than their artistic merit.
The problem lies in deciding
which works have artistic value
and to what degree. This standard
is vague at best and reflects the
endless tension between creation
and convention described by
Hugh Oitaway in his essay “Pros
pect and Perspective.”
The general public has a role in
judging the worth of artistic efforts,
misinformed and misguided as it
tends to be. The artistic community
nas muit. miu«^6v -o
tistic and thus has a greater role in
making judgments, but it must rely
on the public to support its works.
Ultimately, artists and perform
ers themselves will create stan
dards of artistic value. Standards
will be challenged and conven
tions redefined, all under the glar
ing eyes of tradition.
Every work of art or perform
ance is of value, but it is we who
decide which works are sup
ported, through our attendance,
discussion and funding.
In our decisions about which
artists to support, we must be
guided by an ideal of tolerance
rather than judgmental rejection.
Those works which challenge
us may be found objectionable or
threatening, but audiences and
state alike must allow the presenta
tion of such works.
The greatest value of some
works lies in their very threat or
offense. They serve to keep us
thinking, to prevent us from drift
ing into cultural complacency, and
to help us strengthen or redefine
our beliefs.
The disruption or turmoil
caused by such works strengthens
those who tolerate, experience,
and learn from them.
Opinions will vary on their rela
tive artistic worth, but it is essential
that all works be available to the
public. The connection between
availability and state funding is
tenuous but must be considered.
When available, members of the
public then can view such works
and form their own conclusions.
Surely it is better that the commu
nity risk offense or turmoil than
enforce cultural sterility and medi
ocrity through neglect.
/'~'\the
Iriftii
column
album review
MflODBAMA '89
A BUCCAUD'0 BLUNDED
ACACIA - KA0 „
mm kcmrnts. mudinC
1717 YOLANDA
N0VEMBK2 2,3,4
TIIUBiDAY at 7.30 p*. TODAY C MTUUDAY at 7:00 (I 9 30 p« .
Admission $4
I VALENTINO’S
| DELIVERS
THE GOODS
When you’re ready for pizza...take advantage of
these delivery specials:
$Q 99
* Two medium cheese pizzas only **7 •
$Q 99
• Large single topping pizza and four Cokes only •
99
* Medium single topping pizza and two Cokes only vJ*
- X * 'Additional toppings extra
• can 467-36H Valentinos
\ ^ s“?v "T ?“r*fve5“ pm .'°‘11“0,pT The Pizza Restaurant
\ Frid*Y th™ Saturday 5 00 pm. to Midnight -- t^. q. tt i». i r>
\ * Other menu items available * 1 iLctt UlCult OlOp Willi LlZZd
